Michael Thomas wrote:
I can't speak for Spamassassin, I'm not one of their developers
and I don't know the intricacies of how they choose values. It
appears that you're just trying to be argumentative here since
you've seemingly dismissed the larger point that anti-spam filters
rarely use individual pieces of information as a silver bullet.
You think it is argumentative that, for example, a protocol element that
directs a recipient to Reject mail will typically be adhered to and that
conforming to SSP but not adhering to that explicit request is unlikely?
This sort of heuristic approach to protocol specification and interpretation
usually has a poor outcome in Internet-scale services.
d/
ps. Another question that has solidly emerged is whether you can discuss this
topic without ad hominems.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html